It is referred to as the Domain Name. The registrar is Network Solutions, Inc.

3. Procedural History and Jurisdiction

The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the Center) received the Complaint
on June 14, 2001 (electronic version) and June 19, 2001 (hard copy). The Complaint
identified Dennis Gamble as Respondent.

On June 15, 2001, the Center transmitted, via e-mail to Network Solutions,
a request for registrar verification in connection with this case. On June 20,
2001, Network Solutions, Inc. transmitted, via e-mail to the Center, its Verification
Response, stating that Gamble Part Dart Inc. is the registrant for the Domain
Name. Dennis Gamble is the administrative and billing contact, while the technical
contact is Network Operations Center, which is located in Pleasant Hill, California.

On June 21, 2001, the Center notified Complainant that its Complaint was deficient.
The Center received an amended Complaint on June 21, 2001 (electronic version)
and July 3, 2001 (hard copy). The amended Complaint identifies Gamble Parts
Dart, Inc. as Respondent. The Center verified that the amended Complaint satisfied
the formal requirement of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
(the Policy), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the
Rules), and the Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy (the Supplemental Rules). Complainant made the required payment to the
Center.

Having verified that the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements
of the Policy and the Rules, on July 3, 2001, the Center transmitted to Respondent
its Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding
via post/courier, facsimile, and e-mail.

The formal date of the commencement of this administrative proceeding is July 3, 2001.

Mr. Gamble notified the Center via e-mail on June 22, 2001, that he did not
understand the "process [he needed] to protect [his] name". In an
e-mail message sent on June 25, 2001, the Center directed Mr. Gamble
both to its website and to the ICANN website, so that he could review the Policy,
Rules, and Supplemental Rules. Respondent failed to respond to the Notification
of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding, and the Center notified
Respondent of its default on July 25, 2001, via e-mail.

In view of Complainantís designation of a single panelist and Respondentís
default, the Center invited Mr. Richard G. Lyon to serve as a panelist.

Having received Mr. Lyon's Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality
and Independence, the Center transmitted to the parties a Notification of Appointment
of Administrative Panel and Projected Decision Date on August 9, 2001. The projected
decision date was August 23, 2001. The Sole Panelist finds that the Administrative
Panel was properly constituted and appointed in accordance with the Rules and
Supplemental Rules and that the Panel has jurisdiction by virtue of Section
4(a) of the Policy.

4. Factual Background

The amended Complaintís recitation of the facts is sparse. The Complaint contains
little more than a rote recital of the Policy and Rules [1].

Complainant repairs and assembles computers. On May 31, 2001, the State of
California granted John Michael Eagan a service mark for "Computer Connection."
The mark was first used in California in 1994. As discussed below, the amended
Complaint does not provide details regarding the extent of Complainantís use
of the mark.

Respondent apparently registered the Domain Name on March 5, 1999. The site
<computerconnection.com> does not have any significant content and currently
notifies the viewer that content is "Coming Soon."

Complainant contacted Respondent to inquire about obtaining the Domain Name,
and Mr. Gamble sent Complainant an e-mail offering to sell the Domain Name to
Complainant if Complainant would make "a resonable [sic] offer than
[sic] is in line with the going rate." Mr. Gamble stated in the
e-mail that at the time he registered the Domain Name, he intended to use the
Domain Name for a website from which he would sell computers. However, he explained
in the e-mail that he had been contacted by two other businesses named Computer
Connection (one in Georgia and one in New York), and he realized that, "if
the price [wa]s tempting[,]" he could make a profit by selling the Domain
Name to the highest bidder. His e-mail advised Complainant as follows: "You
may want to make an offer rather than spend a great deal of money trying to
take away a name that several businesses in the U.S. go by and desire the name
as much as you do."

5. Parties' Contentions

Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar
to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights, that Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that
the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

Complainantís entire pleading in support of these assertions states as follows:

Computer Connection, Inc. is in possession of service mark #054900 in the state
of California. We do computer repair and assembly. We feel that the Respondent
does not have the rights or legitimate interest in computerconnection.com for
these reasons: He does not own an entity with the name Computer Connection.
Nor does he have a website posted under the name computerconnection.com. We
feel that the name was registered in bad faith for this reason: We inquired
about obtaining the domain and he asked for an amount that was well in excess
of his out-of-pocket costs. We feel that he registered the name computerconnection.com
primarily for the purpose of selling it.

On the basis of this scant pleading, Complainant asks the Panel to transfer
the Domain Name from Respondent to Complainant.

Respondent has failed to reply to the amended Complaint.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel
is to use in determining the dispute. "A Panel shall decide a Complaint
on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the
Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
According to paragraph 10(d) of the Rules, "[t]he Panel shall determine
the admissibility, relevance, materiality, and weight of the evidence."

Complainant must prove the elements set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
These elements are as follows:

(i) Respondentís Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark
or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain
Name; and

(iii) Respondentís Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad
faith.

Complainant bears the burden of proof on each of these elements. Respondentís
default does not automatically result in judgment for Complainant. The Panel
will consider Respondentís e-mail correspondence with the Center and with Complainant
that is in the record of this proceeding.

A. Trademark or Service Mark in Which Complainant Has Rights

Complainant shoulders the burden of proving that the Domain Name is identical
or confusingly similar to a service mark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant
has provided the Panel with a copy of its Certificate of Registration of Service
Mark for "Computer Connection" issued by the state of California.
However, the mere fact that Complainant holds a California service mark for
Computer Connection (issued two years after Respondent's registration of the
Domain Name) is not sufficient to prove that Complainant has rights in the mark
that supersede those of everyone else, for several reasons. First, Complainant
holds a service mark for a name that is generic. Second, Complainantís rights,
at least as shown in the record, do not obtain outside California. Third, the
evidence provided to the Panel indicates that at least two additional businesses
in states other than California are named Computer Connection. To make matters
worse, Complainant did nothing more than plead naked conclusions, rather than
facts that if proven would justify the conclusions that are pleaded[2].

The Panel believes that Complainant has not carried its burden of proving that
it has rights in the mark underlying the Domain Name.

The Mark Is Generic

Complainantís service mark "Computer Connection" is a generic name
that could conceivably be used by numerous entities that buy, sell, service,
repair, or deal in computers or computer parts. A mark consisting entirely of
common, descriptive words is entitled to less protection under U.S. trademark
law and with respect to its corresponding domain name. Ownership of the service
mark does not ipso facto give Complainant the exclusive right to the
descriptive name "Computer Connection" in all contexts related to
computers[3]. There is no evidence (or allegation)
of any special association of the service mark with Complainantís business,
no evidence (or allegation) of any investment in the mark by way of use or advertising,
no evidence (or allegation) of the value of the business conducted under the
mark, and no evidence (or allegation) that Respondent or the Domain Name has
diverted customers from Complainant [4]. Complainant
has done nothing more than prove its ownership of a generic California service
mark that customers may or may not associate with Complainantís business.

Limited Rights

Complainantís ownership of a California service mark for Computer Connection,
standing alone, does not establish any rights beyond that state or the limited
class of services ("computer repair and assembly") for which the mark
was granted. It is conceivable that other states besides California have granted
service marks for the same name. The evidence before the Panel indicates that
at least two other businesses in the country (one in Georgia and one in New
York) are named Computer Connection. Respondent is located in Alabama.

Value of the Mark.

Complainant has provided no evidence of any attempts by it to protect its service
mark through litigation or of any special association of its generic name with
Complainant[5]. The Complainant has in fact
submitted no evidence at all other than its single state registration,
and its conclusionary allegations add nothing.

Complainant has not carried its burden of proof on this issue. The Panel in
autobytel.com inc. v. Sand WebNames aptly summarized this Panelís holding
in the present case:

If a Complainant is going to rely on intellectual property rights, as it must,
there must be adequate evidence of ownership or other sufficient entitlement
to such rights. Such is the basis of intellectual property entitlement. A Panelist
does not have the discretion to infer the existence of rights for which there
is insufficient evidence. If the Complainant has the necessary rights in this
instance, it is unfortunate that the minimally necessary evidence to demonstrate
them was not presented [6].

Since the Panel holds that Complainant has failed to establish the first required
element, it is unnecessary for the Panel to consider whether the Domain Name
is identical or confusingly similar to Complainantís service mark, or whether
the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by Respondent.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, the amended Complaint is dismissed.

Richard G. Lyon
Sole Panelist

Dated: August 20, 2001

Footnotes:

1. In some instances Complainant did not
even bother to eliminate the alternative language not applicable here (e.g.,
"[T]he Respondent is required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding
because: (1) The domain name [s] [is/are] identical or confusingly similar to
a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (2) The
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name
[s]; and (3) The domain name [s][was/were] registered and [is/are] being used
in bad faith.").